eddie wrote:Who was the 'owner' of the egg? Becaeue if the egg used was hers then she is the mother. If she was just the host body, carrying an embryo which is biologically not hers, then she's not the mother.

I thought the woman who actually gave birth is considered to be the mother, regardless of the biology. I also didn't think that such a contract was considered enforceable when it comes to surrogacy, and the article confirms that.

The most important consideration is the welfare of the child. Secondary to that, the issue breaks down to genetic connection vs. birthing.

In this case, according to Judge McFarlane, genetics trumps birthing. There may well be considerations not raised in the article, having to do with why the genetics in this case trumps the birth mother. Or, he may be making a rule.

eddie wrote:I don't think you should take a baby away from a parent it has been living with since birth.

I think joint custody would be fairer.

Court of Appeal judges ruled that the original decision to give custody to the gay couple with limited contact six times a year with the surrogate mother and father was correct.

Lord Justice McFarlane said that while surrogacy arrangements had no legal standing, the child's genetic relationships and welfare were the most important factors for deciding where he or she should live. While the legal mother and father had the right "to change their minds" this did not necessarily mean that they had the right to keep the child, he said. The child was conceived using sperm from one of the men and an egg from a Spanish donor, meaning one of the gay couple is a genetic relative of the child, but the birth mother and father are not.

eddie wrote:Someone who is just carrying a child is NOT a mother, not in my opinion. She's a host, that's all. She has no rights over that child.

you don't consider yourself to be the mother of your children????

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

heres a lovely little monkey wrench for all you "pro choice" lefties to chew on

what happens if she decided to have an abortion??

remember

her body her choice!

im off

have fun

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

So the liberals think murdering a child is better than allowing it to live

Definitely not pro life these liberals

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

The point is that you liberals are saying "she can't keep the child but she can abort it"

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

of course she is

say what?

the other woman in question in the OP wasn;t because it wasn't her egg in the first place.

all very technical maybe but can hardly be compared to what you were saying

So why is she allowed to abort it?

If it's not hers why would she be allowed to abort it??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Its a scenario that challenges your stupidity about how the birth mother isn't the biological mother.

You do realise that some of the birth mothers DNA will cross over into the children.

Secondly you avoid my other question.

If she isn't the biological mother as you insist, then why are you happy for her to abort the child??

What about substance abuse during the pregnancy??

There isn't a need for the surrogate to worry about keeping health or changing her lifestyle since according to you the child isn't hers, she is just the oven.

Happy with that??

Good

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Its a scenario that challenges your stupidity about how the birth mother isn't the biological mother.

No, SmellyFuckWitski... You're the stupid one here..

You do realise that some of the birth mothers DNA will cross over into the children.

Wrong again, SmellyKnowsNothingBumski... You really are a fuckwit,,

Secondly you avoid my other question.

If she isn't the biological mother as you insist, then why are you happy for her to abort the child??

You're an idiot.. A surrogate/would-be-birth mother who isn't the 'biological' mother who then aborts the foetus without any medical reason, would be in breach of contract, and could be sued, forced to return all monies paid plus costs, or be bankrupted if she failed to pay up..

What about substance abuse during the pregnancy??

There isn't a need for the surrogate to worry about keeping health or changing her lifestyle since according to you the child isn't hers, she is just the oven.

More total idiocy on your part, SmellyDumbFuckski -- as the need for a surrogate to maintain a reasonable level of health & wellbeing is normally part of a surrogacy agreement..

Happy with that??

How could any sane person be happy with your level of stoopodity, SmellyFoolsBumski ???

Good

.

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

Wow your desperation, after your embarrassing posts, really is a delight to see mate

Her body her choice

Abortion or substance abuse

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

i dont think that that particular case has happened (yet) but you're saying ''what if?''

Precisely

Everyone on here is supporting the judges decision and claiming that she has no claim to the child.

So If that is true then how do the "pro choice" hate mob reconcile that??

It's places the idea that this baby belongs to other people directly in the path of pro choice beliefs.

If she doesn't have a claim to the child then she shouldn't be allowed to abort it.

That however violates the pro choice stance.

Same thing with substance abuse. Is she allowed to smoke and drink during the pregnancy??

Her body her choice

I'm interested to hear an opinion on this from someone who supports the judges stance.

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

what if surrogate claimed depression and mental health issues was the cause of drug/alcohol abuse?

surely as a victim of depression she would not be sued?

Well that would be up to a judge to decide

The biological parents would still be able to sue the surrogate mother

Then tell me how she was able to apply as a surrogate mother with depression?

Anymore ridiculous strawman arguments you want to make here?

not depression when applied to be surrogate but after the pregnancy

depression can hit anyone at anytime

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

The biological parents would still be able to sue the surrogate mother

Then tell me how she was able to apply as a surrogate mother with depression?

Anymore ridiculous strawman arguments you want to make here?

not depression when applied to be surrogate but after the pregnancy

depression can hit anyone at anytime

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

judges believe all sorts

and if it was a sudden onset of depression there would be no medical history regarding that obviously.

she could of course visit the doctor and state how she feels

depression makes people do all sorts of crazy things that they wouldn't normally do and she could simply claim that she wasn't in her right mind and found she couldn;t cope with it (even if the reality was that she had simply changed her mind and wanted a route out of the situation)

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

judges believe all sorts

and if it was a sudden onset of depression there would be no medical history regarding that obviously.

she could of course visit the doctor and state how she feels

depression makes people do all sorts of crazy things that they wouldn't normally do and she could simply claim that she wasn't in her right mind and found she couldn;t cope with it (even if the reality was that she had simply changed her mind and wanted a route out of the situation)

why would i be answering questions about smelly?

All I read was blah, blah strawman, blah blah.

Again show me the law that states someone cannot be sued due to depression?

You said this could not happen

That was abolsolute drivel

Again if the fetus was lost due to substance abuse, it would then be down to the judge whether the depression was a mitigating factor.

For example, if she has not reported these problems to the doctor, then she has hidden information and placed the fetus at risk

If she has reported this and then does nothing to help her problem, what do you think the judge is going to rule in favour of?

Again surrogate mothers go through a screening process, which its seems you were unaware of

The fact is here, is whether the Gay biological father has custody of the child

He does

End off discussion

You want to debate strawmans off this, find someone else to pander to such silliness

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

smelly-bandit wrote:the sperm donors would not be able to sue the mother

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

She is entittled to abuse her body, but not that of the fetus, when she has a contract

Seems not only are you ignorant on biology, but also contract law it seems

Well if she can abuse her body, why can she not abort things from her body?

smelly-bandit wrote:the sperm donors would not be able to sue the mother

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

She is entittled to abuse her body, but not that of the fetus, when she has a contract

Seems not only are you ignorant on biology, but also contract law it seems

Well if she can abuse her body, why can she not abort things from her body?

In both case she would still be sued, as she is under contract

Take your time trying to grasp even what you have said

Digest it, then if you still need help, phone a friend

"Lord Justice McFarlane said that while surrogacy arrangements had no legal standing"

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."